So, are you proposing that we interrogate all buyers and sellers to determine their intentions with the animals and the actual sources of where those animals came from? That we should play judge, jury, and executioner and therefore determine what YOU do and whether or not that this is acceptable to US? Is our opinion enough, or should we form a committee composed of a set number of people to cast votes of 'YEA' or 'NAY' for each and every post to buy or sell animals here? Where would we draw the line as to whose input is acceptable? Should PETA or SPCA also be welcome to provide input, or do we need to make an arbitrary line in the sand saying whose opinions will be acceptable to try to stack the deck towards one "favorable" outcome or another? Even then, how would we define "favorable" without being arbitrary?
Yeah, most people do not like someone selling wild caught animals, but even in a case like that, where should the line be drawn? Should only the person who catches such animals be blocked, but it's OK for the first line reseller? If not, then how far up the chain before it is OK? How far removed from being wild caught are YOUR animals? Sorry, but any decision made would be arbitrary and capricious, much less impossible to enforce without a team of investigators working full time on this.
And has it actually been stated anywhere concerning what the classifieds section is "for"? At best, I may have made statements to the effect that the classifieds sections are offered on an "as is" basis regarding your use of that section of this site. Quite frankly, I have no intention whatsoever of trying to put myself nor the mods directly in the middle of every proposed transaction that takes place here. We try to keep all transactions strictly between the buyers and the sellers and just stay the heck out of the way. YOU need to make your own decisions about such things instead of insisting that WE filter everything through a filter that YOU want created based on YOUR personal opinions.
Sorry, but most people want me to draw a line in the sand with a sharpened sword over one thing or another that they personally don't like, and to hell with whose toes will get sliced off in the process. Which is fine till someone else wants the line placed where YOUR toes are jeopardized. Suppose I were to take PETA and SPCA to heart and draw that line where they would like it to be? Are you going to be happy with that? Why should their input, then, be given any less consideration than anyone else's if we want to go down that road?
There will always be someone who doesn't like something, so if I enforce YOUR desire to have something taken away from someone else, then that leaves the door wide open for someone else to rightfully demand that I take away some privilege of yours that they don't like. It could be no other way. What it all boils down to is that this is the cost of true freedom. Other people have to bear the burden of putting up with something you like to do that they don't care for so in return you have to do the same in respect to them.
